Which is better Saw 1 or 2
 

Which is better Saw 1 or 2] :-?

saw 2 isnt out yet
but saw 1 will be better because the rights were brought by yanks and no offence they will probably screw it up.
only the aussies are twisted enough to pull of a sequal.
did you know one of the origional writters was the host of a childrens t.v program.
LOL
thats what kids t.v does to you......

No I Hate It
I Mean There Was No Really Action In It

Even Its Not To The End Of The Road
Even It Was Not Tarifing At All

Saw II was far too predictable, and none of the characters were really worth saving. I wanted them all to die, including Donnie Wahlberg's son. Saw creeped me out, made my spine tingle, and I had to turn away during a couple of scenes. Saw II was pretty much an attempt to recapture some of the creepiness, but instead ended up focusing on the gore. Lame.

DICKHEAD!!!!!!!!

it wasn't an action movie it was a horror/thiller movie.

go away and think about what you are saying.

I thought Saw was okay...Not something I'll watch over and over, There were some parts that scared me (Especially that retarded puppet thing...eeeww)

But I haven't seen the sequel.

I saw the sequel to Saw, and it's pretty interesting. I thought it was going to suck,
but it didn't. I give it an 8 out of 10. I really liked the plot. It had some pretty disgusting scenes...

I thought Saw was boring... nor did it freak me out in anyway.

I seen Saw 2 on Halloween, in my opinion, part 1 was better. I can promise you that after seeing part 2, Saw will be a trilogy.

Yes, it more than likely will cause as we all know, when somethings good and makes money it will more than likely be milked for all its worth. Plus, the ending pretty much leaves the opening for it.

Now as for which is better, i'd have to say the first part was far superior in all aspects, mostly because it played out so well and was one of those psychological thriller movies that just seems to grasp the viewer, well most viewers anyways.

I'd have to say Saw 3

Saw I was better, becose, I`ll agree with MilakoJackie, that Saw II was too focused on gore...

Agreed....


Frickin' 9 dollars to see a crappy movie in a crappy uncomfortable chair, no thanks. I might rent it. The only good thing about the first movie was the amazing ending. The rest was crap.

How's about "both movies sucked"? Actually, I'd go so far as to call "Saw" the worst piece of shit I have ever seen in my entire life. (And if you know my tastes, that's saying quite a bit). Not even "so bad it's awesome" (such as "Manos-The Hands Of Fate") or "so bad it's transcendent ("Blood Feast" 1 and 2), but, literally.....stupid exploitation that doesn't even know how to BE an exploitation film (see "The Candy Snatchers", "Toolbox Murders".....oh hell, I should start an "Eploitation 101" thread, huh?), but is just a cynical money-making turd that has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever.....I mean HELL, fucking "SHOWGIRLS" has more going for it than either "Saw"!!!!!

I wasn't expecting "Berlin Alexanderplatz". But the problem with "Saw" is that it's too stupid to even be a DECENT fucking exploitaion flick. It's all "oh look, we're going to follow every formula of the explo genre, but do it all half-heartedly and without a care about....well, anything that goes into this film, because the people who are going to see it are too fucking stupid to deserve their money anyways". And holy shit, I NEVER thought Danny Glover would ever be a bad actor, but this was definately his "I want a yacht" film.

Now, I happen to love a whole bunch of exploitation flicks of all kinds (and trust me, there are many many kinds), but the "Saw" lack the one thing that makes even the worst of the Christploitation flicks worth watching-entertainment value. And to be honest, the more people I meet who think "Saw" was friggin' amazing, the more I tend to agree with the makers of the film-these people ARE too fucking stupid to deserve their money.

Don't mean to sound snobbish, but fuck me if it ain't true.